16 ms·

I don't think this invalidates any of Apple's marketing speak because it still "just works." The fact that this is built into the OS and doesn't have to be sep

I don't think this invalidates any of Apple's marketing speak because it still "just works." The fact that this is built into the OS and doesn't have to be separately installed, upgraded, or managed fits in perfectly with what makes OS X a great and easy to use OS.

daeken 17y ago
Except that antivirus software is, by definition, always playing catchup. When you hit the point that you need antivirus software, you've already lost.
- tptacek 17y ago
  OS X is nowhere near needing antivirus software, regardless of what features the OS X security team has managed to get added to the release. Just another example of the difference between "safety" and "security". Houses in Kennilworth, IL need less security than houses in Rogers Park --- there are something like 192 police officers per Kennilworth township block --- and yet Kennilworth houses can be counted on to have state-of-the-art security, because they can, and state-of-the-art security is a selling point.
  - daeken 17y ago
    OS X doesn't need antivirus software, and I didn't say that it did. Not needing it is a selling point, saying "you know, we don't need it, but we threw it in there anyway despite that it's worthless" isn't.
    - tptacek 17y ago
      Not needing and having are two different selling points, both in evidence here.
      - daeken 17y ago
        Having it negates the "not needing it" selling point IMO. In addition, it being worthless and taking up space and CPU cycles (however passive it is) is a negative in my book. I don't see how it's a selling point at all.
        tptacek 17y ago
        Most users will see any security feature as a net positive. Note the positive publicity (amongst normal users) for Leopard ASLR, a feature that adds no real security. Adding basic anti-malware features to the OS will not negate any of the security value prop in Snow Leopard. I share your take on antivirus software, but do note that preventing a user from installing something with a known virus on it does not have negative utility.
        arebop 17y ago
        presumably details on why Leopard ASLR "adds no real security" are discussed in http://www.matasano.com/log/986/what-weve-since-learned-about-leopard-security-features/ http://www.matasano.com/log/986/what-weve-since-learned-abou..., which will eventually be reachable again?
        tptacek 17y ago
        Yep. Short answer: Leopard didn't randomize important core libraries.
        bvttf 17y ago
        Is there any confirmation that Snow Leopard has fixed this?
- SamAtt 17y ago
  If Macs 'needed' antivirus software it would be necessary on all versions. Just because they've decided to proactively include it doesn't mean they need it.
- joezydeco 17y ago
  If this type of feature can prevent a good portion of users from unknowingly installing malware via random .dmg files loaded from the net, then I'm all for it. So many people these days just install anything without really checking what it is. I don't consider this anti-viral, more like a condom for the lazier users.

daeken 17y ago

Except that antivirus software is, by definition, always playing catchup. When you hit the point that you need antivirus software, you've already lost.

tptacek 17y ago
OS X is nowhere near needing antivirus software, regardless of what features the OS X security team has managed to get added to the release. Just another example of the difference between "safety" and "security". Houses in Kennilworth, IL need less security than houses in Rogers Park --- there are something like 192 police officers per Kennilworth township block --- and yet Kennilworth houses can be counted on to have state-of-the-art security, because they can, and state-of-the-art security is a selling point.
- daeken 17y ago
  OS X doesn't need antivirus software, and I didn't say that it did. Not needing it is a selling point, saying "you know, we don't need it, but we threw it in there anyway despite that it's worthless" isn't.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    Not needing and having are two different selling points, both in evidence here.
    - daeken 17y ago
      Having it negates the "not needing it" selling point IMO. In addition, it being worthless and taking up space and CPU cycles (however passive it is) is a negative in my book. I don't see how it's a selling point at all.
      - tptacek 17y ago
        Most users will see any security feature as a net positive. Note the positive publicity (amongst normal users) for Leopard ASLR, a feature that adds no real security. Adding basic anti-malware features to the OS will not negate any of the security value prop in Snow Leopard. I share your take on antivirus software, but do note that preventing a user from installing something with a known virus on it does not have negative utility.
        arebop 17y ago
        presumably details on why Leopard ASLR "adds no real security" are discussed in http://www.matasano.com/log/986/what-weve-since-learned-about-leopard-security-features/ http://www.matasano.com/log/986/what-weve-since-learned-abou..., which will eventually be reachable again?
        tptacek 17y ago
        Yep. Short answer: Leopard didn't randomize important core libraries.
        bvttf 17y ago
        Is there any confirmation that Snow Leopard has fixed this?
SamAtt 17y ago
If Macs 'needed' antivirus software it would be necessary on all versions. Just because they've decided to proactively include it doesn't mean they need it.
joezydeco 17y ago
If this type of feature can prevent a good portion of users from unknowingly installing malware via random .dmg files loaded from the net, then I'm all for it. So many people these days just install anything without really checking what it is. I don't consider this anti-viral, more like a condom for the lazier users.